The issue also should remind voters to learn as much as they can about ballot questions, whether or not the full wording is handed them on Election Day.
The controversial amendment to ban gay marriage spurred an unusual debate not just over the ban itself, but also how it would appear on the ballot.
In the past ballots have carried summaries, not the amendments’ formal wording.
Foes of the amendment say the language bans not only marriage but civil union, which – even if Virginians oppose gay marriage – might go further than they are willing to accept. Passage of the amendment, foes argue, could impose unintended restrictions on gay couples. If voters agree that the wording would impose those restrictions, they might not be willing to support it.
The state Senate and House both approved breaking with tradition and printing the formal amendment on this fall’s ballot, rather than a summary. Neither lawmakers nor conservative advocates who back the amendment appeared to have a problem with the change.
Said Del. John Cosgrove, R-Chesapeake, who sponsored legislation requiring the full text on the ballot: “[T]here were those going around saying, ‘Oh, we’re trying to hide something – oh, we’re trying to pull the wool over somebody’s eyes’ … and that’s just not the case.”
This debate over printing the full text on the ballot raises the larger question of whether formal wording always should be provided, rather than a summary.
Summaries have been given because legal wording is often hard for the layperson to understand.
Either way, a voter is vulnerable.
If he doesn’t understand the complicated legal language, he might misunderstand the amendment and be unable to make an informed decision. But if the summary is ineffective or, worse, misleading, the same result could apply.
How often does misunderstanding of a summary occur? Without some kind of exposed error and massive public outcry, it’s hard to tell. Some individual voters might have been confused – as they sometimes are even by something as simple as a name on a ballot.
Summaries are written by experts who are trained to interpret legalese into everyday language.
But such aberrations as the recent Nelson County lawsuit arguing that Virginia’s right-to-hunt amendment also enshrines a constitutional right to shoot skeet show just how malleable interpretations can be. This definition of constitutionally protected “hunting” had almost everyone shaking his head in astonishment, yet it was sufficient to launch a lawsuit and an appeal.
Such creative interpretation is becoming a greater feature of modern life, especially in politics. Power-mongers are learning to deconstruct language, twisting it to say specifically what they want it to say or, conversely, rendering it so vague and confusing that voters can’t nail down any solid meaning that would allow them to hold the powerful accountable.
This means that voters may have to take more accountability for educating themselves. They may decide it’s now necessary to read laws and amendments, political statements and rebuttals, in their original form and context and to make decisions accordingly.
And perhaps state government should now always make available to voters on Election Day both a summary of proposed amendments and the original language.
————————
It shouldnt be that hard to take the proposed marriage ballot and “transcribe” it for the general public. Here is what I found on my search for the admendment proposed to ban gay-marriage, and the question that will appear on the Va ballot this fall:
———————
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.
This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The ballot shall contain the following question:
“Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state, in part, that ‘only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions’ and to add provisions relating to the legal status of other relationships and prohibiting the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions from recognizing a legal status for relationships that intend to approximate marriage?”
———————
